[1] The Chief of the Edmonton Police Service relieved the appellant Scott Carter from his duties as a police officer without pay. He did so on the basis that he had reasonable grounds to suspect the appellant had violated section 5 of the Police Service Regulation, Alta Reg 356 / 1990 [Regulation] and had committed criminal offences, and because exceptional circumstances existed in relation to that conduct. The Edmonton Police Commission confirmed the Chief’s decision as reasonable, and the appellant’s application for judicial review of the Commission’s decision was dismissed: Abbott v Chief of Police, 2025 ABKB 2 [Abbott]. The appellant appeals the dismissal of his application for judicial review.
[12] The appellant argues – as he did before the Chief and the Commission – that there was no evidence he initiated the physical altercation with LC. That claim ignores the appellant’s overall role in instigating the conflict with WV and LC. It also ignores the content of WV’s statement to police, in which she said, “Basically, he attacked us and I was just protecting my friend”. As the Commission rightly noted, there was “evidence that Det Carter initiated the physical confrontation”. Ultimately, the appellant asks this Court to re-weigh the evidence that was before the Chief and come to a different conclusion. That is not the role of this Court on a judicial review, nor was it the role of the Commission in reviewing the decision of the Chief.
[13] The appellant further argues the Commission erred by not identifying that the Chief failed to provide sufficient reasons, and in particular to explain his rejection of the appellant’s statement that he only pushed LC after WV pulled out the knife, and that he pushed LC to use him as a shield against WV. The Chief’s reasons were not insufficient. The Chief expressly considered the appellant’s account and explained that his claim that he grabbed LC by “his back to position him” as a shield did not accord with CCTV video evidence that showed LC stumbling backwards into a car, or with the other eyewitness accounts. He concluded he had reasonable grounds to believe the appellant’s report was “falsely made” to “conceal [his] assaultive misconduct”.
[14] The appellant also takes issue with the Chief’s conclusions as to “deceit” and “unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority”, arguing they were not adequately explained. Again, we disagree. The Chief explained to the appellant, “you provided an inaccurate and misleading account in the police report you authored and your subsequent statement that you were attempting to use [LC] as a shield”. The Chief also explained that the appellant improperly invoked his position as a detective to demand the arrest of the two individuals in circumstances where arrest was not warranted. There was no basis for the Commission to interfere with the Chief’s decision on this basis either.
[15] Finally, the appellant argues it is difficult to understand why the conduct identified by the Chief was so serious as to constitute “exceptional circumstances” for the purposes of warranting relief from duty without pay under section 8(10). The Chief explained that the actions identified –using force against LC without justification, assaulting two fellow police officers, and making a misleading police report in an attempt to conceal the assaults – undermined the integrity of the Edmonton Police Service and that a loss of public confidence might reasonably occur if the appellant were not relieved from duty without pay. The majority of the Commission agreed, noting the multiple allegations of assault on their own were sufficient to constitute exceptional circumstances in this case.
[17] The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons for Judgment of The Honourable Justice Anne Kirker, The Honourable Justice Jane Fagnan, The Honourable Justice Alice Woolley
Appeal from the Order by The Honourable Justice J.T. Neilson, Dated the 3rd day of January, 2025
(Full Decision)
The entries found here highlighting recent case law and legislation do not constitute legal advice. We make no claims or promises about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to or from these pages.
Your feedback is important to us. Please email us at LawLibrary@just.gov.ab.ca with any comments or suggestions.
